On 9/25/07, AVee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 25 September 2007 10:32, Dani Anon wrote: > > On 9/25/07, Lorn Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Carlo E. Prelz wrote: > > > > Quoting Dani Anon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > >> - But QT is not free (as in beer) for commercial usage > > > > > > > > This is not the only reason why Qtopia is sub-optimal. > > > > > > It's not a reason at all. Neo is a "free" phone! If I wanted commercial > > > applications, I could easily use any other phone out there. The reason > > > why we are all here, is because the Neo is 'free software'. Would the > > > Neo interest you as much if it wasn't as 'free'? > > > > Tell that to all the people using Wine under Linux. > > I'll use commercial app if they are worth the money. But i really don't see > how someone developing a non-free (both in speech as in beer) should get > their toolkit for free. When you expect people to pay for *your* software you > should not be suprised when you have to pay for a toolkit yourself. > The SDK appears to cost 146 euro, that should be an affordable investment for > any commercial developer.
Yep, but there's this undeniable fact that having 0 entry cost invites a whole new class of developers that you wouldn't have otherwise. I think we could perfectly choose QTopia and just handicap commercial developers, either of the options is better than having two options. > > I thing gp is right, c might be better than c++ for small devices and > > certainly you need to code in c++ to take advantage of qtopia > > components. > > Why whould plain C be better, what matters in the and is the binary that is > spit out by the compiler. I don't see why a C++ compiler should produce a > binary that is somehow less suitable for small devices. > Theoretically two programs written it two totally different languages could > still compile to identical binaries providing identical functionality. If > your C program is indeed more suitable for small devices it just means your > C++ compiler needs to be improved. You do realize that C++ was explicitly > designed with embedded software in mind? I've said a couple of times that I prefer QTopia technically, and I personally prefer c++, I was just agreeing with GP on the language choice being a possible concern, because there is a couple of cons to requiring c++. But I agree with you on this. > > > > Also, Qtopia, by having no X server running in the background, makes > > > > it much more difficult for the average developer to bring his/her own > > > > window to the screen of the phone. > > > > > > not really. <qt-rant>In fact, coding with Qt is much faster than gtk. > > > Ask people that have done both.</qt-rant> > > > > agree, anybody that has tried both knows it's like night and day, qt > > is miles ahead in ease of development. > > And if I where developing a pure basic phone, I'd drop the X server right > away. But for a device like the Neo 1973 i'm not that sure. There are quit > some existing applications I'd like to run on that thing and most of them are > X applications. Losing X is good thing,not being able to use all that code > out there is not. I'm not totaly convinced of either approach yet, I guess > both have their place. Also agree with you there, there are pros and cons to having an X server I was just answering to the people pretending that there are no cons at all, which is untrue. Dani > AVee > > -- > When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look > like a nail. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenMoko community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > _______________________________________________ OpenMoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
